The Price of Democracy

The question that has to be asked is not so much what that price is, but whether apathy minimises or increases the costs of democracy to the extent that it first destroys the processes then on to corrupt democracy itself?

A few days back I commented on a poll Sub Rosa had on her blog. The poll asked what the remuneration should be for Westminster MPs. I commented that I hadn't voted on the poll because I couldn't find a value relevant to the job they had or hadn't done. Then, as an afterthought, I added that I wouldn't pay them at all - I'd let the party they represented pay them.

Tongue in cheek, or throwaway, as the comment had been I thought it might have created a few reactionary sparks. However none appeared, so, as is my wont, with a shrug of quiet humility I turned to other tasks. But the idea wouldn't go away; if nothing else the sparks had excited the synapses - it had some merit beyond the throwaway and, while it may not be a pearl it wasn't so much being cast before the swine as being used as a method to corral and weigh up their value. So here goes.

Lets say the purpose of this exercise is to strengthen our democracy; to give it real goals and accountability. We all know the failings, if not the methods and tactics used to exploit them, of the present system; which in one way or another can all be branded with systemic corruption. From the electoral cradle through governmental lifestyles to their parliamentary graves, corruption has many names but collectively its called the game and its primary purpose is to devalue your vote to beyond the start of infinity. In the process and as an exercise in power it has already demolished the foundation of democracy. How then do we go about getting a fair day's work by paying a fair day's wage to the keepers of our democracy?

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume we have a population of 15 million eligible to vote - on that figure we allocate a price per vote (PPV - everybody loves acronyms) Lets call it £30, so the whole allocation related to MP salaries, expenses etc., would be around £450m per annum.

Or it would be except for the fact that even at General Elections there's little more than 50% who bother to vote. That by itself is a serious blow to democracy and, without putting too much spin on it, a damning indictment on those who profess to govern and work within it. In fact it could be alleged that the practitioners of the present system encourage and benefit from this lack of interest, this self disenfranchisement by the citizenry. In a first past the post system, they've already got rid of half the problem runners, the pros and the thoroughbreds are still in the race but the cuddies, cob's and asses are fed up seeing arses, so they'd rather put a tenner on the tote as a hoof on the track.

This isn't good for democracy, so the need is there to encourage the disillusioned and disenfranchised to use their votes, and for politics to be tied in to that encouragement. So to this end if at a General ( or any? ) Election, only 10 million vote then the allocation for the term of that parliament is only £300m instead of the £450m.

This £450/300m should be allocated to the parties in proportion to their share of the vote?

Why?

Good question. But the way I see it is, while we may change a system and invigorate a flagging democracy we're not likely to change human nature. So taking that as a given, I'd let the parties haggle in their own mire on whether the Rt Hon gets X and Suffolk Twit Y while Dull from Hull get Z. We don't care, we want winners not runners. And the failing of the present system is that the RtHon doesn't give a hoot what Dull from Hull wangles in expenses. Since it's all drawn from the unlimited common purse its fair game, but were it to come from the party coffers and the amounts claimed by the dullards was limiting the scope and style the RtHon believed was merited then the fur would fly under the war cries of competence, commitment and ability.

We don't want the distortions of safe seats and stipends, of entrepreneurial nepotism and the hammocks of tradition. We want the bastards to fight tooth and nail for the privilege of representing us under the bastion of real democracy. We might then, like the citizens of Caesar's Rome, possibly profit and get some amusement out of the process.

So there you have it - possibly more an outline than a blueprint; but in the immortal words " salus populi suprema lex est." any method of governance that fails that test is not fit for purpose. The present democracy and governance we have wouldn't even be entitled to sit the prelims.

Pit Bulls, Poodles & Politics

For Christmas 2009 I was given, by a dear and well meaning friend, Bob Woodward’s trilogy of Bush at War.

Bob Woodward is, along with Carl Bernstein, one of the Washington Post reporters who exposed the Watergate scandal and thrust Nixon into the halls of infamy. As a dissident I don’t particularly rate Woodward; categorising him more as a patriotic political policeman – a placeman who stays within the boundaries and know his place in them. However since this essay is not about Woodward’s strengths or failings as a wordsmith or analyst; as a piece of reportage, and treating the integrity and veracity of the trilogy’s contents are as factual as claimed, they do give a fascinating – disturbing – shocking – or downright frightening (you choose) insight on the intelligence and conscience quotas of the individuals who lord over the corridors of power in Washington and, in a very, very minor bit-part role, the poodle parlours of Westminster and Blair’s ambition to connive for himself and, presumably, future prime ministers similar presidential powers.

In a blurb attributed to the Daily Mail for the second book - Plan of Attack - it concludes “Whatever your opinion, for or against, about America’s invasion of Iraq, this extraordinary book will add weight to it.” I believe the reviewer was half right. I’m still looking for the ‘fors.’

Believe it or not, this is the latest version of many - and it may not be the last – drafts I’ve struggled with to convey with some measure of objectivity the incredible quantity of trust we place on the people who occupy high offices of state. Whether by chance or design, I think this is the major failing of the present political paradigm’s that are exposed by the books.

Bush at War (1st of the Trilogy) Deals with the aftermath of the Twin Towers. America’s understandable shock and anger and the White House’s reactions and actions to the atrocities. Which all boiled down to, this was al Qaeda; the bastard Bin Ladin, who they reckoned was holed up in Afghanistan, probably in Kabul, as guests of the Taliban.

What is surprising was, for all the years of political and media hooha on the war on terror preceding 9/11, how little the Americans actually knew. How little covert or overt intelligence they had gathered on either the Taliban or this terrorist elephant called al Qaeda, which seemed to exercise all their executive abilities to a superhuman extent in order to save us from Islam’s venal intent, even if it meant reducing their own citizens rights and freedoms and increased the states instruments of control.

Anyway, they eventually came up with a game plan; which was to put the pressure on the Taliban to capture and handover the al Qaeda elements. The Taliban nodded, shrugged their shoulders and got on with their tyranny. Plan B, was to shower the northern war lords with suitcases of dollars and give them logistical support to drive the Taliban out of Kabul and maybe flush out or, if they were very lucky, blow Bin Ladin into a minor sand dune. The plan didn’t pan out. Neither the Taliban nor Bin Ladin played ball. Instead of standing their ground and testing their ability to withstand the barrage of million dollar smart bombs on five-dollar tents, both Taliban and al Qaeda just stole off into the night, leaving a situation, which hasn’t changed much from nine years ago to this.

But Bush hadn’t secured his Prime Time Showcase revenge for Sept 11. He’d no heads in baskets, no terror trophies; all he’d achieved was possibly to expose Afghanistan to the next warlord who, flush with dollars, fancied his chances.

But there was always Saddam. He was always good for Prime Time and Cheney and Rumsfeld were both slavering to get him on it.

On the 12 Sept 2001, within 24hrs of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, at a National Security Council meeting Rumsfeld had suggested they tie in the Iraq issue with al Qaeda.


Plan of Attack (Book 2) deals with the Iraq offensive and the formation of the coalition. We’re told on the 21st Nov 2001 Bush asked Rumsfeld, “What kind of war plan do you have for Iraq?”

The concise critique of this book would be that there were no plans. Oh there were plans to create plans, Pentagon plans, Secretary of Defence plans covering known knowns, known unknown’s, unknown unknowns; except they didn’t know for certain which category any of the above came under. And, even after years of surveillance, thousands of sorties policing no-fly zones, sanctions and weapons inspectors, the CIA had no real ‘intelligence’ of either the military deployment and capabilities or the mood, morale or aspirations of the people of Iraq. All the Americans knew was ‘they were going to kick ass.’

This is the book where you learn regime change was always the prime objective on the American agenda. That the claimed 45mins for activation of WMD’s was thrown out of the ballpark early on by Washington – though Blair still used it as the mantra he based his decision on.

It’s here you find out a British prime minister asked if he could please take part in this war. Jan 31st 2002, Blair said he needed the favour. Please.

In page 338 you are told Bush, concerned by the problems Blair may face getting the vote through Westminster, “If it would help, Bush said, they would let Blair drop out of the coalition and they would find some other way for Britain to participate.”
The interesting word here is ‘let’ – perhaps it helps define what’s meant by the special relationship? Except by now, you have already been disabused of such a relationship ever existing or even that democracy plays any part in either government.

However on 18th March the issue was resolved when Westminster, with the help of the Conservatives, got his vote through parliament. Why would the Conservatives do that? What is this thing with the Conservatives and war – has it something to do with their investment portfolios. Or is it merely a traditional yearning for the glory and spoils of imperialism? There’s no question of the leader of the opposition not being briefed as to the governments reasons for joining the coalition. Should he and any others who attended not be quizzed by the Chilcot inquiry as to what they were told that convinced them to back the government?

Saddam’s military organisation has never been shown to have any particular strategic or tactical skills, expertise or spirited commitment. Sure they could annihilate the unarmed Kurds with toxins and spend years and a fortune shelling and bombing Iranian sand without, as far as I know, gaining a foot of territory. But their enthusiastic foray into Kuwait was only exceeded by their panic to get out of it. So it shouldn’t have been too out of the box for the military and political planners in Washington to develop their plan of attack and to have some idea as to how they’d control the occupation.

They’d won the war, toppled a statue, had their prime time pyrotechnic display but, gawdammit they’d forgotten to drop the leaflets or commission the broadcasts that told the people of Iraq what their liberators intended to keep the countries infrastructures, services and administration functioning.

They had a force powerful enough to conquer but not to occupy, police and maintain stability. In effect they’d won the battle for Baghdad and toppled Saddam but had lost the war for Iraq.

State of Denial (Book 3) Deals with the aftermath.

By this time your numb with idiocy fatigue. Initiatives appear, then somehow or other mutates with another, then, having achieved nothing but chaos disappears. Only for the individuals involved to reappear with initiative N, or is it Z, and you realise a whole new industry has been created in Baghdad and Washington, creating initiatives. Hollywood comes to Baghdad. None of which helps the Iraq’s; where the Hell is Harrison Ford when you need him?

What you do find out is there were many more ‘incidents’ ‘collateral’ deaths and injuries than were reported by the Western media. Months on end the casualty figures exceed the death toll of 9/11. And on a partisan note, Basra, where the British controlled, was mentioned twice.

So, given that most of us already consider Iraq and Afghanistan to be failures, what, if any, impact or insight is contained within the books that would relate to Scotland’s independence?

Often supporters of independence are challenged that Scotland is too wee to matter and too poor to prosper. Keeping that in mind and knowing what we do about the costs these lap-dog policies have on the domestic front. Even, leaving aside for the moment the price in lives. The question has still to be asked what will be the final cost associated with that favour Blair pleaded from Bush and who prospered from it. As to stature, well a few mentions in dispatches isn’t going to strain the transient charity or good will of the special relationship and, if these books are a true reflection of Washington it’s a relationship struggling to keep hold of a corner of a thin blanket.

Can Britain afford the membership fees, ironmongery and pompous regalia needed in order to grab the crumbs from the top table? The self-evident fact is it can’t, though I fear it will try to, even if it bleeds itself dry and pawns its soul in the process. At least Canute tried to stop the tide coming in; Westminster is trying to keep the tide of history in and trying to shape the future from it.

That’s why Scotland has to unhitch itself from the yoke of the union and plough its own furrow

A new year. Question is, will it be a different year?

There's no doubt some who will prosper in spite of the price we have to pay for the freedoms allowed to our financial knights, buccaneers and mercenaries. But, in the absence of any real measures in retribution, control, or the elevation of responsibility and social morality to be included as a factor in their wheeling and dealings, it's highly likely the financiers will form the vanguard of that some.

Others will prosper because of the effects caused by the recession. Most of whom will be the fringe predators whole sole reason for existence is to pick the cadavers clean of the victims who have succumbed to the effects of the melt down. At the top end they are receivers and liquidators - they like to be called administrators - but there function remains as it has always been, namely to cover their fees while manipulating some return to secured creditors (usually the bank, especially if its the bank who instigated the receivership).

Generally these liquidators! sorry administrators, are subsidiary sections of the main - the big five - accountancy firms. The big five who earned £51 bn in fees for 2007/08; a large part of which included their fees for vouching for the veracity of the major banks audited accounts and the booming profits they claimed to make. Profits that for some unknown reason or metaphysical financial jiggery pokery never seem to relate to the amount of their corporate tax liabilities? However that discrepancy could be explained by the fact another large section of their fees are earned by the employment of their expertise in designing the manipulative levers, derivers and avoiders that give lie to the fact of these audited accounts being an accurate account of the assets and liabilities of the firm they represent to merely being a jumble of figures they consider they can get off with. Nothing has been said about the failure of these probity policers, though given the paucity of action against their fraudulent clients there's little to be surprised by that lack.

At the bottom of the fringe we have those who take action against the gullible consumer who's been gulled by the plastic snake bonanza's of credits and the ladders of housing booms. Here we have the witless morons, the bailiffs, the sociopaths of a legal system that has removed any liability from cause and acts on effect, provided the esoteric i's and t's of its systems have been properly dotted and crossed. No doubt we can, with a fair degree of accuracy, assume they will enjoy a prosperous 2010 relevant to their status.

The other event we can look forward to this year is the general election.

In Defence of Anonimity

As a matter of personal choice I am 100% in favour of Scotland gaining its independence.

There's nothing xenophobic in this reasoning. As an island race or as world citizens we share the same flaws and graces that gnaw and disturb the consciences of all human society. Scotland gaining its independence I see as granting five million people the opportunity to radically redefine the quality, competence, moral values and responsibilities of their democratic governance.

To this end, I often blog on related sites and occasionally on the Scottish newspapers which generally are biased beyond the tipping point of vitriol against independence. But with circulation figures below100k in total the two papers involved can no longer regard themselves as anything other than purveyors of establishment views. In a slightly different category and as a supporter of independence there is the weekly broadsheet the Scots Independent. Perhaps surprisingly it is an article in the latter that has led me to comment in the following manner.

The article in question is authored by a Mr Jamie Hepburn who I believe is a SNP member of the Scottish Parliament. It relates to recent events in the blogger sphere where some individual were 'outed' from the anonymity of their blog nom-de-plumes and, in one case at least, exposed as a peripheral employee of an SNP parliamentary minister. His critique of that case seems to be based on the exposure of inside knowledge to the free-for-all of the Internet is not the done political thing. Leastwise, while it may be done in the club, it shouldn't be aired outside it? Sounds a bit to me like Swinger Club rules - something not entirely compatible with open governance.

But, and in an even more patronising manner, he advocates that all bloggers of an independent persuasion should blog in a more circumspect manner! Why on earth should he want that when the very essence of the blogger sphere is the immediacy of the responses to whatever generates them. When a spade's called a spade, linguistically it's perfectly described with economic and pinpoint accuracy. Call it an instrument for the manual removal or redistribution of soil or loose compounds and your left with a confusion of possibilities from a spoon to an earth mover. Obfuscation is already well practiced and heavily employed in the political industry of Westminster; what possesses him to believe we want it employed in Scottish governance?

As to hiding behind anonymity. Our amateur status gives us a right to that. Mostly we seek to gain neither status, money nor celebrity but to put a shoulder to the wheel of independence. The glory we leave to you the professionals but we 're only too aware that often that professionalism sets as elitism instead of excellence and hides its failings behind the skirts of excuse.

So take us as you find us, elucidate where there's misunderstanding, remove the ache of frustration with objectives. But patronise, and you will be guilty of the same institutional hypocrisy as practiced by governments, unions and establishments throughout the life of this dysfunctional union.

Finally, while it has taken thirty years for the SNP to gain the ground it could have had with better intelligence, it has definitely earned the right to fight for Scotland's independence. As yet it has still to earn the right to govern an independent Scotland.

Democracy: Macaque Style.

The Macaque connection came to me when watching, in my usual semi somnolent state, a recent BBC 'Life' programme.

Seemingly the Japanese Macaque Monkeys are the most northerly societies of any primate species other than man. But, not only do these choose to live in the Northern latitudes they seem to add masochism to their winter misery by adopting the Japanese Alps as their natural plot, where temperatures of minus 15c have to be endured and the ravages to the young, old and unfit were simply part of natures cruel selection.

Until, that is, the camera swung on to the hot pools. There in the same vicinity you saw Macaque's languishing in luxurious warmth. Faces basked in utter contentment; smug in their meditative comfort, their aristocratic birthright. No they don't share the pool. They have developed a hierarchy, a pecking order of haves and have not's. Those that are in the pool can come and go as they please. But their miserable cousins, huddled in their icy misery face death if they attempt to dip their toe in.

Strategically the numbers outside the pool were far greater than those in it - though that wasn't down to any lack of capacity - so the result of any attack would have seen the pool with new tenants. And, whether by arrogance or ignorance, the current occupiers didn't seem to be concerned by this potential threat. Perhaps their indolence will eventually expose itself as idiocy through self imposed interbreeding restrictions of the genes in their pool. Perhaps after another couple of thousand years of evolution the Macaques will be sharing the pool. Or perhaps not. Maybe the have not's will go on casting envious eyes; knowing what could be, but denying their ability to make it happen because its never been.

Perhaps the state of Macaque society is an apposite observation on the evolution of human society under democracy, Westminster, or even Western style with its hierarchical control of its power thermal pools. Or, is the acceptance of hierarchies hard wired into our primate genealogy?

Today we call it lateral thinking. It is the ability to analyse, adjust and expand an observation beyond the matter which brought it to the observers attention and for its projection to be valued as to its purpose and possibilities.

Samuel Johnson was a lateral thinker. In his journey round Scotland he noted, 'the Scots were more frugal with their glass than were the English.' An observation more in the 'bland' than the 'eureka' category but nevertheless it was a catalyst that led to him adjusting his perspective on social progress as being truly measured by the small advances of the many.

Johnson writes,"But it must be remembered that life consists not of a series of illustrious actions, or elegant enjoyments; the greater part of our time passes in compliance with necessities, in the performance of daily duties, in the removal of small inconveniences, in the procurement of petty pleasures........ The true state of every nation is the state of common life. The manners of a people are not to be found in the schools of learning, or the palaces of greatness...... they whose aggregate constitutes the people, are found in the streets and the villages, in the shops and farms: and from them collectively considered, must the measure of general prosperity be taken. As the approach to delicacy a nation is refined, as their conveniences are multiplied, a nation, at least a commercial nation, must be denominated wealthy."

So, what is the true state of that common life today? And, if, and that's a questionable 'if', the quantity of glass has been equalised through the Union, has its quality or clarity?

We know that Gordon Browns premiership has been jinxed by failure. By choice, a political geek, he's climbed the mucous greased slopes of party politics only to fail in the two positions that held any real power. His, and the party he represents 'illustrious actions and elegant enjoyments' have had less substance or purpose than the proverbial fart in a ballroom. Unfortunately the precision of the toxicity meters have ordered the ballroom be emptied and decontaminated.

His, and his predecessors, time in office, have done nothing to raise the 'delicacies and conveniences of the common man' as Johnson put it. In fact, given that the 'common' man is considered Labour's core right to exist as a political party, it's arguable that in both their ideological role and their executive abilities they're not fit for purpose. And when you consider the resources, power, opportunities and diversities offered by helming the ship of state, that's a pretty damning indictment.

Of the Blair/ Brown era there's - the failure to radically amend the House of Free Loaders (TB) - the proliferation of stealth taxes(GB) - (The raid on pension funds, when it was already obvious few would meet their promises to the investors.(GB) An illegal war to back an idiot over a egomaniac. (TB) The removal of the 10p tax rate in a manner which increased the taxes of the lowest earners by 100%, while benefiting the better off. (GB) The Iron Chancellor who had banished Boom & Bust until the bust came back and chewed off his prudence, exposing his ignorance.(GB) You could add to that the expense scandal but on the scale of woes, that's more puke-making than terminal.

While by now we should all see Blair in his true colours - I'm a celebrity; get me into there - Brown, we thought, had a bit more going for him. Less spin and sin. More of the what you see and hear, is what you'll get idiom. But when you look back over the years from 97 and consider his record, you have to ask. Did he ever understand and command the responsibilities of the positions he held. Were the decisions his, or was he just a front man sipping from chalice's filled by his mandarins? It's a fair question, albeit without an answer favourable to Brown.

There is however one thorn Brown is desperate not to have to add to his crown of judgement. One that is cast as a minor irritant to a colossus of world politics and may yet prove to be his nemesis. That is the breakup of the dysfunctional Westminster union by Scotland declaring its independence.

To prevent that he will use every trick he and the establishment mandarins can think of irrespective of costs, legitimacy or legality, though hopefully short of war..... Here's an example.

It was soon emphasised during the meltdown crises the lame duck role's being allocated and heavily publicised to the two major banks that were unfortunate enough to have the word 'Scotland' included in their name.

While there's no doubt both of these banks were guilty as any of the others of being blinded by their own bullshit, there's no reason to believe they could be that much worse than the exposures of Barclay's, Lloyds or HSBC.

Barclay's we're told managed to refinance from sources in the far and middle east. Not only that

but Barclay's, having been refused permission to buy Lehman outright, managed to raise 1.5 bn to buy the viable part?

On the Lloyds and HBoS fiasco of cocktails over winks and nudges, we've listened to the script, but whether we find it believable time will tell.

HSBC have managed, until this Dubai wobble at least, to keep below the radar the charity offered or accepted from the public purse?

But the Scottish banks. Every billion invested in RBS and HBoS. Every problem the absorbtion of HBoS is causing Lloyds. Any outcry at bonuses are directed at RBS. We are told so desperate is the position at RBS that the new CEO is offered a £10m thank you if he can get it's share price back up around the £1?

Last week it was headlined throughout the mediocre media that RBS and HBoS got billions in secret bailouts. Turns out they were given bridging loans when the panic first set in and the loans were as much a saver to the governments position as they were to the banks, who paid dearly for them.

The pertinent question was put by the Channel 4 newsreader when he asked Lord Myners - "Were similar payments made to any other banks during this period?" Lord Myners refused to answer. Pressed several times he would neither confirm or deny; so given the usual position of government, we can take that as a yes.

So why the constraint in admitting there were funds loaned to the other banks. Is it for commercial reasons? Who were these financial angels who bailed out Barclay's? The world of finance is well practiced in fogging the maze of money sources and transfers. Could the funds enjoyed by Barclays, HSBC even Lloyds not have sourced from the same treasury pot under a false flag label?

Given that all the banks were in deep dodo and panic was the order of the day, were some allowed the luxury of options and others not?

Or was it simply the squeezing of the 'Scotland' word along with the mantra of - Now's not the time to bother with independence, we must concentrate on getting out of the recession - is the only remaining debris Labour could cling to from the wreck of the SS UK.

Today we are told by the National Audit Office the cost to date of the bank meltdown is £850bn - a figure likely to rise and it probably doesn't include the cost of welfare/benefits to the unemployed etc - how much of that £850bn went to RBS or HBoS, most, all or some of it?

Answers on a post card please. But don't put an X on any of them; Labour may use them to boost their postal ratings in order to award us with another five years of their illustrious actions and elegant enjoyments.

Heroes are cheap today -Perhaps even cheaper than yesterday?

What part does Afghanistan play in the 'democracy' of the UK?

On the day that we hear of another five soldiers paying with their lives and, possibly, five others seriously injured by Taliban partisans who had posed as 'Government' soldiers, do we deplore the tactics adopted by the killers as 'unfair, inhuman or cowardly', or do we project our anger at the politicians who expose the lives of our service people for reasons that fail to reach the level of rhetorical tripe.

Supposedly, according to the rhetoric, our troops are there to prevent the Taliban? - or is it Al Quaida - or just anybody Muslim - from visiting our green and pleasant democracy and showing their envy of our materialist idyll and god given right to patronise, by attempting to indiscriminately blow us up.

For our part, our involvement in their affairs is, of course, purely benign- with the exception of the troops that is. And their arsenal's with all the profits they bring to the suppliers.

As a coalition of UN, US and NATO we are there to drum into their thick medieval skulls the benefits of our democratic process with all the trials, tricks, troubles and tribulations that corrupt it daily, if not hourly. Those being swept to one side as euphemism's of the democracy package.

However we have set them a good example of western double standards by organising a corrupted election to elect a corrupt president in order to maintain a corrupt purpose. We call this 'pragmatism' - a step seemingly in the right direction; which means absolutely nothing when those that are doing the stepping don't know which direction they should be heading on.

A couple of weeks have passed since I started this article, and since then the death toll has risen relentlessly.

To the families and loved ones of the soldiers, I'm sorry for your loss and shamed by the lack of ability to prevent it.

But take no solace from the words of politicians, generals or the media, it's empty rhetoric that only grieves for the effect it has on their dusty statistics.